False Flag Op By The Brits? Bloody Likely!

So now we have two British soldiers (likely SAS) arrested in Basra, Iraq, for firing on Iraqi police officers. When they were caught and arrested, it was found that the car they were driving was packed full of explosives.

So, we have a few different possibilities here that I can see :

1) the two soldiers were delivering the explosives to insurgents in a sting operation (sort of like undercover narcotics officers buying/selling dope during a sting).

2) the soldiers were delivering the explosives to insurgents in order to facilitate an attack on a target the British could not be caught targeting.

3) the British SAS troops were involved in a false flag operation which involved an attack against Iraqi police, army or civilians, in order to ensure their 'help' remains 'justified'.

The facts that we have so far negate the first two listed above, and here is how :

1) two British soldiers wouldn't fool anyone by putting on wigs and Arab dress. Their skin color and mannerisms would give them away long before their accents. Plus, if you were buying explosives from someone in an occupied country with a few different sides, i'm sure you would make sure you knew who you were buying from.

2) if it were a case of not wanting to be the ones caught targeting someone/something, they would still do it themselves. The SAS are some of the most highly trained advance forces in the world. They are basically state sponsored trained terrorists, and would likely have a higher chance of success (hitting target and not being caught) if they completed the whole mission themselves rather than having to rely on another untrained, and possibly untrustworthy party.

Given the above, unfortunately the one explanation that seems to fit the available evidence is the third option - that the British SAS were involved in a false flag operation. And before you say that is crazy and they would never commit acts of terror, please look at the current state of affairs in Iraq and the Middle East in general. Then look at past precedent of governments planning terror or actually committing terrorist acts to support an agenda.

Current Situation in Iraq and the Middle East in General

We have the Iraqi "government" saying that coalition troops could begin to pull out late 2005, which would obviously limit the influence the Americans and British currently wield over Iraqi politics - at the end of a gun. We have the Iraqi "government" building ties with Iran right in front of the Americans and British, who at the same time are starting the propaganda at home against Iran. We have the saber rattling against both Syria and Iran as well as the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

So basically, the Iraqis are cultivating ties with an enemy of their occupiers, while telling the occupiers that they can start planning to leave. At the same time, the Americans and British are seemingly gearing up for conflict with Iran and/or Syria, for which they will need bases to launch attacks from...what better place than Iraq which borders both nations?

This all leads me to one conclusion : the more unstable Iraq remains, the easier it is for the Americans and British to justify the occupation by fighting the 'insurgents' who are against a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

And the more they tell their people at home that the Iraqi insurgency is foreign fighters from Syria using explosives supplied by Iran, rather than Iraqis trying to kick out an occupying power, the more it seems that they are planning to escalate the situation against those nations. To do so they need a base from which to launch attacks...again, what better place than Iraq, which borders both?

Precedent For False Flag Terrorism

The British committed many acts of terror while trying to keep a handle on Northern Ireland throughout the years. Some have come to the surface, others will eventually be properly documented.

The U.S. has obviously terrorized nations around the globe for decades, but they even planned to commit acts of terror on their own citizens! The most recently revealed example being the 'Operation Northwoods' plans. For background go here and here, go here for a scan of the actual declassified document.

Here's another report of the U.S. forces actually hiding explosives in civilian cars in Iraq. Here's a report of the Iraqis already believing the Americans are behind (at least some of) the terror in Iraq.

Conclusion

The idea that the British and/or Americans have motivation and precedent to carry out terror attacks is not outlandish. It is actually the most logical explanation given the currently available evidence as well as the common sense approach, which is asking and answering the question "who has motive and opportunity?"

Now that the Brits have busted the two soldiers out of Iraqi jail rather than working with Iraqi authorities to secure their release upon confirmation of their identity, I become even more suspicious.

Whatever did actually happen could have serious consequences for the coalition in Iraq. The people already think the occupiers who are 'fighting' the terrorists, are also being the terrorists.

Add this event to the already current perception that they could be carrying out false flag ops, and the coalition risks uniting the Iraqis against them, as well as the rest of the world. Their current divide and conquer hold over Iraq would evaporate in a second, and they would be forced to withdraw with their tail between their legs and face international condemnation.

In this case, American foreign policy would have to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. Or they could ignore world opinion and continue down the road to ruin and pariah status.